Re: Consensus on identifier/locator split?

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
> >I'd just like to get a sense from the group about where
> >we are so far.  Do we have consensus about splitting
> >the address into locators and identifiers?  Note that
> >I'm NOT asking about specifics, like "how big", "what
> >mappings exist", "is it secure", etc. Do we agree that
> >we want to go down this path?
> 
> Is it good enough to say that I think we should explore
> options in this area?
> 
> I have two reservations about making a sweeping statement
> that this is the right solution to site multihoming in
> IPv6:
> 
> (1) It isn't 100% well-defined.  The NOID proposal, for
>      example, doesn't really split the ID and locator into
>      separate fields -- the same value serves different
>      functions at different layers.

True, but conceptually the split is still quite clear
(as it is in LIN6 and HIP if you look at them the right way)

> 
> (2) We don't have a completely worked example.  So, we
>      can't be sure that this type of approach will meet
>      the requirements with an acceptable impact on the
>      other layers of the system, acceptable performance,
>      etc.

True. But we have a lot of specifics, e.g. in the LIN6 and
HIP drafts.

   Brian